Saturday, June 28, 2008

Swedish party politics

It was supposed to be a party with balloons and a birthday cake but the eight-year-old Swedish boy had not reckoned on his country’s obsession with equality and inclusiveness. Two of his classmates were left off the invitation list – and that, deemed his school – was forbidden and a violation of their rights in the strictest “nanny state” in Europe.

The case has been sent to the Swedish parliament and has sparked a national debate about individual liberty. Does a child have the right to invite anyone he wants to a party, even if he risks hurting the feelings of those who were left out?

The birthday party case takes state intervention to a new level. Before the beginning of lessons the boy had cheerfully threaded his way through the class handing out invitations. When the teacher spotted that two children had not received one he confiscated the invitations.

“One of the children had not invited my son to his own birthday party,” explained the father of the boy, who lodged an official complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman. “The other one had been bad to my son for six months. You do not invite your antagonists.”

That was not convincing enough for the headmaster or government deputies. “I believe the staff acted correctly, in a model way,” said Lars Hansson, of the Swedish Liberal party, one of the four ruling coalition partners in the country.

That is because you are, without doubt, one of the most sinister cunts that I have ever heard of. You make our politicians look like mere amateurs.

“It is their duty to reject any forms of insulting behaviour. To eliminate individual children from parties is not acceptable.”

Really? And perhaps you would like to explain why the fuck not? Or perhaps you cunts don't believe in freedom of association?

Yup, they’re so communitarian that the invite list to an 8 year old’s birthday party is a matter for the State.

Somehow I just don’t see that quite catching on here: perhaps, contrary to Polly’s desires, we’re just not a social democratic nation?

I really wish you were right, Tim; I do. But we will be doing precisely the same soon. Have we not already done so? Did I not see a story the other day, in Scotland, where schools no longer make Father's Day cards because it might exclude those children without fathers?

If we haven't banned children from inviting who they like to their birthday parties yet, rest assured, we will do; we will do.

Once again, 1984—and I am pretty sure that it has been translated into the god-awful, gutteral, Swedish language—was a fucking warning not a cunting instruction manual.

I bet that you're fucking proud, aren't you, Margot? This is precisely the sort of behaviour that you would encourage.

Lena Nyberg, the Children’s Ombudsman, is waging a campaign against collective punishment in schools too. Children have been complaining to her about the way that entire classes are kept behind after hours to punish an offence committed by a single pupil. “Adults at work would never accept being punished for something which a colleague is guilty of,” Ms Nyberg said.

Really? What about the restrictions on drinking in Sweden? Or in this country, for that matter. Or the laws against drug use, or a million other things? Adults are constantly being punished for the stupidity and ignorance of other adults; it is what governments do these days; they punish the innocent majority for the sins of the guilty few.

Besides, you don't have adults: your molly-coddling Welfare State and communitarian bollocks has castrated your men and spayed your women. And thanks to your malign influence and the lack of cojones amongst the UK population, the British are rapidly going the same way.

Our politicians are turning most of the population into sheeple, fucking morons who will do anything to gain some crumbs from the government's table—crumbs that are, in any case, stolen—extorted under threat of punishment and imprisonment—from the productive in society. And these same fucking morons are forcing those of us who disagree with them to toe their line, to pay for their lifestyle choices, to fund their habits.

And everywhere goes the cry, "more people want it than not, so they must be indulged. The people voted for this, and they keep on voting for it."

Some call it democracy: I call it tyranny.

And I reject it.

I do not wish to be forced into state subjugation by the stupid, the ignorant and the just plain bastard lazy.

I do not wish to be forced to associate those with whom I have no wish to spend my time.

I do not wish to be forced to close my mouth for fear of arrest.

I do not wish to find myself locked away without trial, not knowing what I am accused of.

I do not wish to be an indentured servant, half of the product of my hard work stolen to pay for the lifestyles of those who are parasitic on the productive.

I reject this statist evil and I reject the validity of this democracy—this tyranny of the majority—this totalitarianism of the lazy and stupid over those who think and would be free.

I am not interested in democracy, but in liberty. And our democracy is proving, as any system of government always does eventually, to be the enemy of liberty.

It is why I am a libertarian—because it is the only moral philosophy. Under true libertarianism, no one is forced to support anyone else. No one is forced into a socialist hell-hole. No one is even forced to be a libertarian: if you want to form your own voluntary, socialist enclave, then you can. But you cannot force everyone else to pay for it.

Libertarianism is the only morally right choice if you believe in liberty. The problem is that few people in this country seem interested in liberty; as such, they will continue to vote for one of the Big Three statist parties and force their bigotry, their prejudices and their bleeding heart socialism onto those of us who do not wish to take part. And they do so at the barrel of a gun—holding up their hands and claiming personal innocence whilst their jack-booted, weapon-wielding representatives threaten us.

Is there any place free from these fuckers—these parasites? Is there nowhere where we who wish to be free can go? Can we not go somewhere else, and leave the socialists and their parasitic brethren to wallow in their own shit?

If a small team of Silicon Valley millionaires get their way, in a few years, you could have a new option for global citizenship: A permanent, quasi-sovereign nation floating in international waters.

With a $500,000 donation from PayPal founder Peter Thiel, a Google engineer and a former Sun Microsystems programmer have launched The Seasteading Institute, an organization dedicated to creating experimental ocean communities "with diverse social, political, and legal systems."

"Decades from now, those looking back at the start of the century will understand that Seasteading was an obvious step towards encouraging the development of more efficient, practical public-sector models around the world," Thiel said in a statement.

It might sound like the setting for the videogame Bioshock, but the institute isn't playing around: It plans to splash a prototype into the San Francisco Bay within the next two years, the first step toward establishing deep-water city-states, or what it calls "seasteads" -- homesteads on the high seas....

But if the idea turns out to be just crazy enough that it works, Friedman, following in the footsteps of his grandfather, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, envisions transforming the way that government functions.

"My dad and grandfather were happy arguing their ideas and were happy influencing people through the world of ideas," Friedman said. "I see a real need for people to go out and do something and show by example."

True to his libertarian leanings, Friedman looks at the situation in market terms: the institute's modular spar platforms, he argues, would allow for the creation of far cheaper new countries out on the high-seas, driving innovation.

"Government is an industry with a really high barrier to entry," he said. "You basically need to win an election or a revolution to try a new one. That's a ridiculous barrier to entry. And it's got enormous customer lock-in. People complain about their cellphone plans that are like two years, but think of the effort that it takes to change your citizenship."

Friedman estimates that it would cost a few hundred million dollars to build a seastead for a few thousand people. With costs that low, Friedman can see constellations of cities springing up, giving people a variety of governmental choices. If misguided policies arose, citizens could simply motor to a new nation.

"You can change your government without having to leave your house," he said.

A few more years of the insanity that we currently live under and I shall seriously consider moving to one of these, should they work. After all, with fast satellite broadband, there is no real reason why I could not work from one of these towers.

The only thing that makes me sad is that the Devil's Tower already exists...

17 comments:

The government decide who's going to an eight-year-old's birthday party?

I read yesterday that Adsa refused to print a baby picture on a birthday cake because the baby's bum was showing. It was pornographic, they declared.

So we're on the way. Expect new legislation soon. Birthday party permits will be required and anyone taking a photo of their own child will have to sign the sex offender's register. Teachers will visit children's homes to ensure that their circle of friends is sufficiently inclusive, and any failing to match the ever-changing requirements will have 'racist' tattoed on their forehead.

Once we have ID cards, it'll be easy. Anyone not conforming will just be deleted from the database and declared a non-person.

"Libertarianism is the only morally right choice if you believe in liberty. The problem is that few people in this country seem interested in liberty"

Of course. Because they wouldn't know what to do with freedom if they got it. The problem for libertarianism is that most people acually prefer to be "sheeple", directed and dictated to from cradle to grave.

Most human beings prefer safety to risk, the predictable to the unpredictable and the known to the unknown. They prefer the status quo to change and the problem with democracy is that that is what they usually vote for.

They are more interested in who won Big Brother than the erosion of individual freedom and, sadly, I fear that, because that is how most people are, the statists will always prevail. Extreme libertarians will be characterised as crazed misanthropes, snarling from the sidelines.

"The problem for libertarianism is that most people acually prefer to be "sheeple", directed and dictated to from cradle to grave."

That is fine - under a Libertarian Government, all they need to to is report to Labour Party HQ and be told what to do, be handed their dinner money for the day (all other earnings "redistributed") and have their Sky+ set so they only watch what is "right" for them.

The rest of us can get on with our own lives. Voluntary collectivism is fine.

We were talking about this Swedish birthday party story over breakfast yesterday. My son (13) asked: "Is Sweden a communist country?"

At my daughter's school, we were horrified to learn that her teacher collects party invitations and hands them out by calling out the name on the envelope. Omigod, those poor 7 year olds will be scarred for life.